tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post115728931353512216..comments2023-12-28T18:17:11.191-05:00Comments on Gruntled Center: Walk-away Church DivorceGruntledhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14377809238377382438noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1162788599601654222006-11-05T23:49:00.000-05:002006-11-05T23:49:00.000-05:00I don't think the Westminster Confession citation ...I don't think the Westminster Confession citation is really apt. It seems to me to be about individual property, not congregations. And, in any case, the Book of Order provisions are controlling here and now. I am in favor of making a reasonable deal with the congregational majority, but if they simply try to take the building, I don't see how they have a legal leg to stand on.Gruntledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14377809238377382438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1162309239251940802006-10-31T10:40:00.000-05:002006-10-31T10:40:00.000-05:00Dear Gruntled, I love the name. I've usually cons...Dear Gruntled, I love the name. I've usually considered myself well gruntled and certainly do not want to diss Gruntled, But, Presbyterian Property Law has always held that the local church owns the property. See the Disciplines of 1560 and 1578. Knox himself was involved in drafting these. The Westminster Confession clearly states "Nor doth their communion one with another as saints, take away or infringe the title or property which each man hath in his goods and possessions.", which in simple terms means just because I hang out with you in the denomination, you don't own my property. This provision is still in the superior part of the PC(USA) Constitution.<BR/> The recent additions the the Book of Order, the lesser part of the Constitution were added in the 1980's to bootstrap on a Supreme Court decision. PC(USA) reps have admitted as much. The Westminster Confession provision is based on scripture not on civil law. All references to the church in the NT refer only to locally owned churches. See for example Rom 16:5, 1Cor 16:9, Phil 4:15, Phm1:2, & 2John 10. I cannot find any reference in Scripture to a denominational trust.<BR/> Who paid for the property of the Kirk of the Hills? The people who voted 96% in favor of leaving. If the Kirk received even a dime from the PC(USA), they should pay it back, but the denomination should not claim to own property which it did not pay for and does not own. In ruling against the Property Trust provision, aJudge in a NY case recently said it is a basic principle of law that you cannot create an interest in someone's property just by declaring it. This is what the Property Trust provision purports to do. The Presbytery in Oklahoma went out and unilaterally made claim to the Kirk's property. Can't blame the Kirk for wanting to undo that.<BR/> Hope the info is helpful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1157601431859976702006-09-06T23:57:00.000-04:002006-09-06T23:57:00.000-04:00Beau wrote, "The property rules are older than the...Beau wrote, "The property rules are older than the city of Tulsa, so surely precede the Kirk of the Hills."<BR/><BR/>Maybe, maybe not. The texts of the property rules you quote in your post are a fairly recent innovation, going back no further than the late 70s. Before that, I don't think there was an explicit rule about property. The text arose because in the absence of an explicit rule, courts were using "neutral principles of law" to decide property issues -- and often rulling against presbyteries. <BR/><BR/>If I remember the language correctly, a lawyer in western Pennsylvania advised some congregations it was not possible to retroactively encumber a conveyance. Basically, that meant the property clause didn't apply to gifts made before the mid 70s, and property decisions would be made according to the rules in place when the original gift was made, normally when the church was founded or when the present building was constructed on the current site. <BR/><BR/>There is a certain air of unreality in the presbytery's claim they own all property. The real sacrifices to care for and maintain the property are not made by the presbytery. For most congregations, the presbytery invests precious little in the care and maintenance of the property. <BR/><BR/>Imagine what we'd call a landlord who treated his tenants the way presbyteries treat their congregations. Or as an elder once complained, "Presbytery says they own this building. So tell me why <I>we</I> have to pay for the new roof on <I>their</I> building?"PJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00789222484014113052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1157596228849436212006-09-06T22:30:00.000-04:002006-09-06T22:30:00.000-04:00The PC(USA) is the successor to a body that was fo...The PC(USA) is the successor to a body that was founded in 1706. The property rules are older than the city of Tulsa, so surely precede the Kirk of the Hills.Gruntledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14377809238377382438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1157563725994568082006-09-06T13:28:00.000-04:002006-09-06T13:28:00.000-04:00I'm not a church lawyer so I don't know if the PCU...I'm not a church lawyer so I don't know if the PCUSA has the concept of "ex post facto". I do know that US law recognizes it. Perhaps that applies here since Kirk of the Hills property was bought and paid for before that section of the BOO was passed and, indeed, before the PCUSA even existed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1157394716119153302006-09-04T14:31:00.000-04:002006-09-04T14:31:00.000-04:00You know, the leaders of the Kirk have said they w...You know, the leaders of the Kirk have said they will leave with or without the property. The property is a lot bigger deal to the Presbytery than it is to them. But it is definitely better to leave with it, and that would be the just conclusion, considering that it wasn't the Presbytery that paid for it. Maybe they could pay the Presbytery back whatever the 36 people who want to stay in the PC(USA) gave toward the facilites. That would be fair.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1157369389619826222006-09-04T07:29:00.000-04:002006-09-04T07:29:00.000-04:00We all might have a time when we need to walk away...We all might have a time when we need to walk away from any particular denomination. I think it is better for our own characters if we plan on walking away from the building, too.Gruntledhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14377809238377382438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16201378.post-1157359736841191932006-09-04T04:48:00.000-04:002006-09-04T04:48:00.000-04:00Those who just walk away should be given benefit o...Those who just walk away should be given benefit of the doubt. I might come to the point of might doing the same thing too. But my faith is high and I have deep trust in the LOrd. He will guide me through.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com